Slitherine

There being previous posts related to the in canon Valkyrie Type Battlestar and queries as to whether it or a pre-cursor version (Odin class(?), might make it into deadlock in a future DLC.

https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewto ... 69&t=90934

I thought it would be interesting to create a theory build of where the Valkyrie/ Odin could fit in the current colonial fleet. Keeping in mind the relative balance of ships in the game, that being in the main consisting of the armaments, carrier capacity, hull, armour, firing arcs, speed, squadron and accuracy bonuses. Also importantly considering the design and utility of the ship as seen on screen.




I have done this as a pdf document you can access through this google drive link-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nOzERu ... sp=sharing

For the TLDR (too long didn’t read) / theory build suggestion for the Valkyrie, in the document scroll to- 4. Proposed theory build- Valkyrie/ Odin Light Battlestar —> B. Suggested stats of Valkyrie.

Interested in thoughts and feedback from other forum members/ community on the proposed theory build.
How would you build and position a Valkyrie / Odin Type Battlestar within Deadlock? Whilst aiming to maintain game/ ship balance.

Thanks to Black Labs for such a well thought out, executed and highly enjoyable game. Looking forward to seeing where things go in season 2 and beyond.

Edit: 23/01/2019. Update to document in link with additional stats for suggested ship build (stats such as tech/armoury had been omitted from the first version) and post notes discussion on Valkyries appearance in first cylon war during "Blood and Chrome" film / mini series. The following link contains variations of first build suggestion based on feedback from post replies below, and further build consideration titled- "Valkyrie Type Battlestar theory build iterations / versions (stats)" https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cfL9o3 ... sp=sharing


Edit: 24/01/2019- Valkyrie MKI-VII (suggested) comparision theory build design elements

I am in the midst of reading your work, and I'll comment again when I've finished. Thus far, it looks fantastic and I am excited to dig into more of the details of how this could be (theoretically) implemented. Don't let anyone discourage you or tell you it's not possible (except for Black Labs, haha). Build a solid case and take input and feedback, and then present and pitch it.

You have a great start here.

So, here's my take. I am not a ship building expert, though I have a good amount of exposure to space combat.

In your "mission statement" for the Valkyrie/Odin, you said it should be "Designed to get [in] deal damage, then get out
of range of enemy counter attack." You've also pointed out its smaller size, and focus towards support vs flagship, and stealth. From what your objective is, speed should be near the top of your list as an asset. Your current suggestion is roughly 145-150 m/s, which is fantastic. The ship matches the size profile of other ships in that speed rating, and it makes sense. Good thinking there.

You listed out the potential armor values, and I am going to point out where your compromises to avoid making the ship "too good" for balance. Space Dock points out the very open under belly (Bottom armor) of the Valkyrie. and I would suggest taking that point to heart. Give the ship an armor value of 30 for the Bottom, and then distribute armor of 45-50 across the rest. I think that would be a good offset of "If you let the toasters get under you, you're well and Frakked" Also finding a subsystem to put on the bottom there to reinforce that vulnerability would be something to consider.

So, canon calls out the Valkyrie's ability to fire ship to ship missiles, and you had questioned adding a slot for them to avoid the ship being over powered. I'd find a balance there. Include a munitions slot at a 4 turn cool down, which keeps it in line with how the ship is described, and it also adds a small caveat to it being too appealing.

To add some more off sets, I would suggest a debuff to marine strength, as the ship's crew compliment is mainly going to be weapons officers, gun crews, command staff, deck crews, and pilots. As such, a slightly higher accuracy rating on guns and a lower delay to the launch time on squadrons would fit well into that.

On the note of rear facing guns, I would bank onlooking at shots of the ships from the show and movie, and then make your decision there.

Overall, I think this was well thought out and presented. I'd love to see what you begin to iron out.

So Say We All!

having a look at this it's very similar to what I've come up with (will see if I can provide an image of the latest iteration) but ignores a few things about balance, the purpose of a battlestar and the strength of medium guns.

@Panzer_Spaniard. Thanks for the initial reply and for the detailed feedback on speed, armour, munitions and marine strength, the enthusiasm and encouragement is appreciated. I hadn’t given much thought to marine strength as of yet, wanting to get the main stats in, and unsure if further stats would “switch people off” so to speak, if the length of the document elements hadn’t done that already ). But that doesn’t seem to be completely the case, and it is very relevant to consider all the stats rather than just the key attractions. Very much like the reasoning around the reduced marine capacity. I'll add in any missing stats to the theory build document and provide a "version 2" link subsequently.

With regards to bottom/ ventral armour, yes Space Dock does point out the exposed appearance of the underside, though as far as I'm aware this is a fan observation (as is the case with most of the “sources” we’re dealing with ), rather than canon that the underside is exposed or more poorly armoured. That being said I agree with what your saying. Personally, I would perhaps go for 40 plus(ish) rather than 30, as at 1300 fleet points and a Light, but still a Battlestar, I’d think it would be running a bit more. For a point of comparison looking at the Minerva its top armour is 45 and bottom is 60, so having weaker bottom armour on the Valkyrie VS top would be in keeping with a mis-match of top/bottom armour ratings on a battlestar in game already.

Munition wise agree that it would seem a bit odd for the Valkyrie not to have some sort of missile capability. As during its appearance on screen we see it fire a missile at the stealth recon craft. Looking at Gryphon_Space’s input on a prior suggesting for a Valkyrie Type Battlestar, perhaps off setting a munition slot with a reduced number of Turrets and/ or switching one of the squadron slots from universal to support could balance things.
For example
-8x Medium Turrets- side & forward firing arcs, rather than 10x
-Single munitions slot, with a normal 3 turn cool down.
-1x Squadron slot, 1x Support slot

This leads well into Gryphon_Spaces comments around what purpose / role a Battlestar has in a fleet. My question with regards to this would be which in game attributes should the proposed Valkyrie retain to still be considered a Battlestar, beyond pure appearance? Could the Valkyrie drop some of the attributes of a medium (Artemis) or heavy battlestar (Jupiter) or not. There will likely be different points of view on this, but what do people think?

Gryphon_Space you commented that the build suggestion “ignores a few things about balance, the purpose of a battlestar and the strength of medium guns”. I’m not disagreeing with you here, but would welcome some more elaboration if you're willing.

Its interesting to see the build suggestion you put (Graphon_Sapce), as I considered an iteration of 1x universal squadron, 1x support squadron rather than 2x universal / fighter squadron slots myself. There really are a lot of different ways to take a build around the 1200-1300 fleet point mark, or other fleet points marks that might be suggested for a Valkyrie Type.

If I was to take this build from Gryphon and the one I originally suggested (perhaps unimaginably effectively Berserk 2.0 with a Valkyrie skin), it would look something like.

1x Squadron slot
1x Support slot
1x Munitions slot, standard reload (keeping with on screen missle capability of Valkyrie)
6x point defence (broadside) / flak (retain defence attribute / perhaps Battlestar DNA component)

Turrets- Variable / open to balance change, suggestions
-Version 1- 8x Medium Guns for lateral and frontal firing ars.
-Version 2- 4x Heavy, 4x Medium Turrets for lateral and frontal firing arcs.
-Version ... (other iterations)

Variable build options with regards to Turret range and accuracy. As Panzer_Spaniard pointed out, perhaps a level of range/ accuracy bonus would fit the ship Strike / support role, whilst it being overall less armoured than Artemis or Minerva.

I would perhaps shy away from 2x munitions slots at the fleet points of 1300, and to not tread on the toes of the Minerva’s utility. Though your build (Gryphon) would likely have had in mind a different fleet point ball park…? Look forward to hearing about the “latest iteration” of the build from Graphon_Space.

Side note- I had written a further discussion, from my somewhat biased perspective, on the appropriateness of a Valkyrie Type Battlestar or pre-cursor being in the first cylon war, i.e. its appearance in “Blood and Chrome”. I’ll add this into a post notes section of the document, for those interested, in the next day or so.

Thanks again to both for the replies and any further response.

Welcome input from others who have read the post so far and would be interested to comment.

So Say We All.

Thanks for the response at length, iE8Flak4Breakfast. I am going to wait on your release of a version 2 of that google drive doc before I add any further input; I'd like to see how you take the feedback from me and Gryphon_Space.

I think you'll find a lot of overall positive support in the responses that are yet to come, and I am sincerely hoping that the devs take note of this and make a consideration for the ship being implemented.

If it does turn out to be "too advanced" for the First Cylon War, I believe I speak for the community when I say I would love to see the RDM BSG Second Cylon War era ships (cough Pegasus cough) built as a sequel to Deadlock.

Keep up the good work, and since you're so involved, figure out a ship and a rank, make it a signature.

So Say We All

I will give here a much more well layed out version of my build and after that explain my thoughts behind it.

Project: Hamburger - Precursor Valkyrie.
Cost: 1250.

1x: squadron slot.
1x: support slot.
2x: standard reload muntion slot.
6x: PDCs (port and starboard flight pods)
4x: Heavy Guns (dorsal hull).
2x: Heavy Guns (ventral hull).
2x: Heavy Guns (bow hull).
Bow armour: 70.
Stern armour: 40.
Port and starboard armour: 70.
Dorsal armour: 60.
Ventral armour: 50.
Speed: 140ms
Special characteristics.
Flak: Normal Flak Size, Reduced effectiveness.
Manoeuvrability: increased Yaw and Vertical Manoeuvrability
Guns: Heavy guns have reduced damage, all guns have increased range and accuracy.

I mainly made this as a precursor to the Valkyrie.

My reasoning behind the munition slots is the colonials eventual return to (slap on as much chrome as you can find and call it state of the art) style design and from what we know the Valkyrie class isn't armed with especially big guns, but it's still first war at this point in time so I imagine the colonials are going to keep large calibre guns around.
my reasoning behind these heavy guns is a logical downgrade from BS arty.

My reasoning for the armour is as above but replace guns and gun related terms with armour and armour related terms and that 60 armour doesn't last long on a size 3 hull.

for flak, it's a battlestar.

@Gryphon_Space I think this is a very well laid out _ship_, however, I don't think it necessarily works for the Valkyrie. At the current point cost for this ship, its armor, speed, and munitions....it makes the Minerva look like kind of a poor choice. I'd rather spend a bit more on 2 of your proposed Valkyrie class Battlestars (2500 FP) as opposed to 1 Minerva (1850 FP).

Minerva Stats:

Speed: 115 m/s

Hull: 135

Armor:
Left: 60 (Hangar)
Right: 60 (Hangar)
Front: 60 (Armoury)
Rear: 45 (Navigation)
Top: 45 (Engineering)
Bottom: 60 (Fire Control)

Yes, the ships lose out in guns/BS Arty, but playing the range of heavy guns, staggering the munitions firing, and keeping that frontal armor forward (not to mention the SPEED), hell, even one of these Valkyrie ships makes taking a Minerva look dicey at best, as they are (IMHO) more glass than cannon.

I believe @iE8Flak4Breakfast is aiming to make something that would fit the first Cylon war, potentially something that had already been in service as a support vessel to accompany the Artemis, like a Diet Battle Star. Fast, light, maneuverable, able to get in and out without too much issue, and put up a fight both ways.

I think having that much in the way of armor, guns, munitions, carrier capacity (even a bit), and speed makes it both unsuitable for the thought experiment at play, and from a balance perspective, a ship that would make the Minerva even less of an appealing fleet choice.

Let me know what you think about my feedback, I am enjoying the collaboration and discourse on this.

So Say We All.

@Panzer_Spaniard, I've upload a version 2 of the original document with the missing ship stats (tech/ armoury, Engineering, numerical values for speed / navigation), as mentioned I've added a post notes discussion (biased argument, lol) on the Valkyrie's appearance in "Blood and Chrome" / presence in the first cylon war. Accessible where the original link was.

@Panzer_Spaniard and @Gryphon_Space. I've created a separate short document of 3 different version of the Valkyrie theory build. Version 1 = initial proposal, Versions 2 & 3 = changes based on feedback and further build consideration. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cfL9o3 ... sp=sharing

Thoughts?

PS any feedback on glaring spelling, punctuation and grammar errors welcome.

@Gryphon_Space thanks for your response with your ship build. I'll reply / comment soon.

Panzer_Spaniard wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:53 pm @Gryphon_Space I think this is a very well laid out _ship_, however, I don't think it necessarily works for the Valkyrie. At the current point cost for this ship, its armor, speed, and munitions....it makes the Minerva look like kind of a poor choice. I'd rather spend a bit more on 2 of your proposed Valkyrie class Battlestars (2500 FP) as opposed to 1 Minerva (1850 FP).

I think this is partially more of an issue with the minerva, but being overly durable is a fair concern especially considering this would be a whole hull size class lower so here's my revision.

Project: Hamburger - Precursor Valkyrie.
Cost: 1250.
Hull: 90
Hull size: 3
1x: squadron slot.
1x: support slot.
2x: standard reload muntion slot.
6x: PDCs (port and starboard flight pods)
4x: Heavy Guns (dorsal hull).
2x: Heavy Guns (ventral hull).
2x: Heavy Guns (bow hull).
Bow armour: 60.
Stern armour: 40.
Port and starboard armour: 60.
Dorsal armour: 60.
Ventral armour: 50.
Speed: 140ms
Special characteristics.
Flak: Normal Flak Size, Reduced effectiveness.
Manoeuvrability: increased Yaw and Vertical Manoeuvrability
Guns: Heavy guns have reduced damage, all guns have increased range and accuracy.

I've lowered the hull since this will start competing with the jupiter MK2 if you have 2 of these. this did get me thinking of ways to slightly buff the minerva which you can see on this official deadlock discord.

@Gryphon_Space, looks like we're sitting on similar numbers with regards to armour, I had initially put down 50( to 60) armour rating, but considering further 50 is pretty low for a battlestar and 1250 fleet points. I can certainly see the argument for a battlestar having some point defence and flak.

I would suggest that with 2x munitions slots with 60 armour for 1250, it does overshadow the Minerva's current positioning, BS artillery not with standing. Dropping to 1x munitions slots would make it more reasonable in my opinion.

Thanks for the suggestion to check the BSG deadlock discord. I keyword searched Valkyrie and had a read through previous posts, most of the discussion seems to be around the lack of plausibility that a ship in service 10 years into the first cyclon war (Blood and chrome) could still be competitive / at the front line in "The Plan", some 40 years later, and a ship sent for a high priority covert op in "Hero". I have to say I agree with the points being made here. Giving strength to the view that the Valkyrie having the same appearance in "Blood and Chrome" and "The plan" is a reuse of CG assets. A comparison would be kind of like seeing a viper mark VII flying around during the first cylon war. That being said, and was suggested in the discord, a precursor ship keeping the core design, but looking more similar to first cylon war era ship design could make sense. A Valkyrie Mark I in the first cyclon war, and the Valkyrie in "The Plan" pictured in my initial post, could for example be a sleeker up to date Mark VII. At some point the design and role specific brief that the Valkyrie fits into would have been drawn up and implemented. What I'm suggesting here is that the initial role the Valkyrie fits into could have been identified as a need during the first cyclon war, hence an inception in a Mark I form.

Further to this the adamant class certainly has some design elements that would synergies with the Valkyrie, tapered mid hull section and angular “alligator head”. A comparison could be drawn between the more “blocky” design elements of the Adamant vs the Valkyrie, and the design elements of the Viper MK I and Viper MK VII.

I've mocked up a Viper MK I and VII image comparison, compared with Valkyrie and Adamant, I've added it to the initial post above, and can be viewed here also-https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pgYBzl ... sp=sharing

I still highly disagree ththq t this overshadows the minerva with it's sheer firepower advantage having 13 pdcs on top of the battlestar arty and with the low damage output of the heavy guns I've given mine making them more equivalent to a cylon heavy gun, that has higher accuracy but only 2 damage per shot, I think having these 2 munition slots helps make it so missiles a more necessary apart of the damage output on the minerva. On another note currently the only ship in the game that can do more gun damage or dps over time is the jupiter MK2 which can theoretically yet 16 battlestar artillery and 8 pdcs to bear. Also nothing will ever be as sexy as the minerva.

Also what's your username on the server, mine's the 4th IL Commodore.

@Graphon_Space, yes agreed that the Minerva would still be more powerful, however with proposed fleet points of 1250 vs 1850 you would expect it to be. Another way to look at it would be to say, either have ranger 1050 points with 45 hull @ sides, or the Valkyrie build you suggested for an extra 200 points, to get 60 armour and 1x squadron, 1x support slots. It would seem like a lot of return for little fleet point investment. Though you could also argue a counter point with my build, that the Heracles is 1250, and for the same perhaps your getting only a little less overall firepower (less armour), but 2x carrier slots, on my proposed Valkyrie build. All things considered it seems like we just have a difference of opinion or perspective, which is totally fine. As I wrote previously, interesting that our builds aren't too far off from each other overall.

Agreed the Minerva is a really cool design. I do also really like the design of the Valkyrie, and agree with SpaceDock in his youtube videos that the Adamant is a fantastic design also. Black labs has done a great job at extrapolating the Colonial first war era design language.

In terms of discord I didn't need to be signed in to be able to read the BSG deadlock page as it appears to be a public one. But I'm thinking of logging on next weekend to see if I can find some people for a few matches. I'll message you if I do post up on the board. Platform wise I play deadlock on the xbox, which platform are you on? As far as I'm aware there isn't cross play...? Cross play would be awesome btw (black labs...).

Gryphon_Space wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:37 am

Panzer_Spaniard wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:53 pm @Gryphon_Space I think this is a very well laid out _ship_, however, I don't think it necessarily works for the Valkyrie. At the current point cost for this ship, its armor, speed, and munitions....it makes the Minerva look like kind of a poor choice. I'd rather spend a bit more on 2 of your proposed Valkyrie class Battlestars (2500 FP) as opposed to 1 Minerva (1850 FP).

I think this is partially more of an issue with the minerva, but being overly durable is a fair concern especially considering this would be a whole hull size class lower so here's my revision.

Project: Hamburger - Precursor Valkyrie.
Cost: 1250.
Hull: 90
Hull size: 3
1x: squadron slot.
1x: support slot.
2x: standard reload muntion slot.
6x: PDCs (port and starboard flight pods)
4x: Heavy Guns (dorsal hull).
2x: Heavy Guns (ventral hull).
2x: Heavy Guns (bow hull).
Bow armour: 60.
Stern armour: 40.
Port and starboard armour: 60.
Dorsal armour: 60.
Ventral armour: 50.
Speed: 140ms
Special characteristics.
Flak: Normal Flak Size, Reduced effectiveness.
Manoeuvrability: increased Yaw and Vertical Manoeuvrability
Guns: Heavy guns have reduced damage, all guns have increased range and accuracy.

I've lowered the hull since this will start competing with the jupiter MK2 if you have 2 of these. this did get me thinking of ways to slightly buff the minerva which you can see on this official deadlock discord.

Thanks for taking the constructive feedback, @Gryphon_Space, and I can 100% agree with you RE: Minerva. Shame that the goddess of war got such a crap ship named after her. I'm sure you've seen my war games and theories posts, I have very rarely used the Minervas, and I have the same thinking about them that I have for pistols and rifles "A pistol (Minerva) is only good to shoot you way back to the rifle (literally any other Battlestar) that you should have never left behind". And yes, I know damage dealing wise it's a fantastic boat, it's the limited amount of punishment it can take that really outweighs that for _me_.

Looking over the rework, I have to agree with Lt. Williams and his opinions on the munitions slots to armor to point cost ratio. Having one munitions slot _should_ be good enough. I am still also a proponent of having a debuff to marine complement strength, which fits the logic of what the ship is used for, and also puts some emphasis on the "don't stick around and get boarded, move more". The PDCs should be a good balance to the lowered marine strength, as any heavy raiders that get close should take a bit of flak or fighter damage prior to getting into the flight pods.

Frankly, I can't see many more changes I would make to this ship, it's a fast attack Battlestar. My only real concern would it getting singled out; I would more than likely operate this in a duo configuration, or with some kind of brutish escort (maybe a Minotaur?) to act as a soak for some of the damage as the Valkyrie re-positions.

This really is a great thread, and I appreciate how much thought is going into this.

So Say We All

iE8Flak4Breakfast wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:11 pm Platform wise I play deadlock on the xbox, which platform are you on? As far as I'm aware there isn't cross play...? Cross play would be awesome btw (black labs...).

I am on pc iE8Flack4Breakfast

Panzer_Spaniard wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:53 pm

I'm sure you've seen my war games and theories posts, I have very rarely used the Minervas, and I have the same thinking about them that I have for pistols and rifles "A pistol (Minerva) is only good to shoot you way back to the rifle (literally any other Battlestar) that you should have never left behind". And yes, I know damage dealing wise it's a fantastic boat, it's the limited amount of punishment it can take that really outweighs that for _me_.

Looking over the rework, I have to agree with Lt. Williams and his opinions on the munitions slots to armor to point cost ratio. Having one munitions slot _should_ be good enough. I am still also a proponent of having a debuff to marine complement strength, which fits the logic of what the ship is used for, and also puts some emphasis on the "don't stick around and get boarded, move more". The PDCs should be a good balance to the lowered marine strength, as any heavy raiders that get close should take a bit of flak or fighter damage prior to getting into the flight pods.

Frankly, I can't see many more changes I would make to this ship, it's a fast attack Battlestar. My only real concern would it getting singled out; I would more than likely operate this in a duo configuration, or with some kind of brutish escort (maybe a Minotaur?) to act as a soak for some of the damage as the Valkyrie re-positions.

This really is a great thread, and I appreciate how much thought is going into this.

So Say We All
[/quote]

I have not seen that post or thread.
But on the 2 munition slots and carrier slots the direct competitors for these have much highet quality slots foe these, the ranger having only a 2 turn reload and the atlas having an extra fighter slot and 35 squadron evade.

It should probably have reduced a marine complement but that's not much of a balancing factor since cylon boarding is currently (and I think people like waggle and sproge can agree on this) objectively the worst mechanic in the game being functionally useless.

I would suggest you consider the rangers firepower as well since it's pretty good, just a bit fleshy. But I don't think that this overshadowsthe ranger and makes it more an additional option for colonial missile fleets or add some extra munitions to a colonial gun or carrier fleet, these won't put out anywhere near the same firepower than an Artemis either.

Back on the minerva, half it's issues is the concept of tue design and the other half is points placement. As a glass cannon battlestar at it's points placement it needs to do a lot of damage, but if it isn't made of glass it overshadows basically everything, but if it's just msde of glass it's useless when it inevitably gets hit, so they make it be able to avoid damage, thats where the 6100m max gun range comes from although this only works in vs colonials since it isn't enough to deal with the 6000m range of all cylons especially revenants, but cylons do more damage at range so it's useless then. If you gave it more armour to help this to say 80 for the sides that are 60 and 60 to the sides that are 45 it's overshadowing the artemis now, give it too much more and it's doing the same to a jupiter now with a bit of a tradeoff for which to chosse. Personally I think this can be helped if we make the sides or bow 70-80 not both areas just either port and starboard or the bow.

Bit of a dump for you 2 to enjoy.

@panzer_spaniard would you be able to give me a link to this since I can't find it.

Gryphon_Space wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:16 am @panzer_spaniard would you be able to give me a link to this since I can't find it.

If you look on my profile, you can see my posts. I haven't done one specifically on Minerva, the war games and theory post I was talking about was my after action report in regards to fighters being outnumbered.

I had also kept a war journal for a while, keeping meticulous track of casualties in the war (using space dock and wiki stats on crew compliment), but that fizzled as I wasn't able to keep up with it.

Why Battlestar Galactica deadlock needs a Valkyrie in it the Video below Gives good reason for its Needed inclusion in the Game below enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjmgkHq ... tion=share

Both the Minerva and Jupiter need more Point defence turrets the Minerva need 2 to 3 more each side and the Jupiter need the same.

if you have played the ghost fleet and used the Defender that has better Point defence than any Battlestar in Deadlock which is sad.

You can use the Defender as a good ship shredder when a battlestar should have this ability if not better.

The game needs a mode where you can play all the DLC as a full campaign mode all in chronological order.

This should give you any DLC ships made available earlier in the Campaign mode because in truth some ships would have been available earlier like the Defender and the Osiris Both usable long before Ghost fleet offensive.

that's just.... wrong on so many levels and I'll explain why tomorrow.